December 8, 2007

ADDED: Do you like my new blog portrait, done with the "thermal" effect in Photo Booth? It's demonstrating my iciness. I can do video in Photo Booth now (with Leopard). So give me some ideas for vlogging in blue (or as a cartoon, etc.). Back later.

111 comments:

Two men imigrated to America from Farawayistan. One man says tot he other "I am going to become more American than you, in fact, I'm going to become so AMerican that in one year no one will be abel to tell that I comd from Farawayistan".

The second man says "No you won't, because I am going to become much more American than youever could become".

So they agree to meet in on year to see who has become most American.

The first man says "Well, my friend, I just had breakfast at McDonald's, I drive a new Ford pickup truck, I went to the Charlie Daniels concert last week, and I'm going to watch my son play in Little league this afternoon. I am a member of a country club, and own a new home in a lovely suburb. You can't possible me more American than I have become in just one year".

Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."...

Also in the wide-ranging AP questionnaire in 1992, Huckabee said, "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Anyway, what did you think of David Lynch's "Blue Velvet"? Was it blue enough? It seemed awfully red to me.

Speaking of red, do you think the current Rasmussen poll demonstrating the American public's wide disbelief in the new NIE exonerating the Mullah's weapon's program hurt the Democrat candidates for president at all, or is it just more chatter on the wires?

So here's what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking, (b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d) eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical "confessions" under duress. This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and and law enforcement personnel.

I liked the previous picture better. It was a flattering picture, and it made you look more human than the thermal image. PS - was the baby at lunch some relation to you? Inquiring minds want to know...

...and yes I realize that as a winter-spring commenter I have little authority to make demands, but I will try to participate more faithfully until my summer obligations overtake my spare time again. (former candidate for Althouse poet laureate, if you read my blog you will see that I really have been legitimately occupied)

I don't like the picture, you are trying too hard. You are not Madonna (god I love her).

We don't want to hear about anything that can somehow make republicans looks bad but if there is something that can make the democrats look bad that we care about Christopher. As a result you are a troll.

I just pinched a greasy morning loaf. I sat on the throne and it was like turning on a fawcett on full blast but I feel much better now.

Also in the wide-ranging AP questionnaire in 1992, Huckabee said, "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

OK, according to the CDCthe estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS in 2005 in the United States and dependent areas was 41,897. Of these 41,897 cases 45% are listed under the transmission categories of male-to-male sexual contact and male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.

Estimates of the incidence of homosexuality range from >1% to 10% which includes lesbians. Since there are slightly more gay men than lesbians it appears that no more than 5% of our population is responsible for 45% of our AIDS cases.

A former GOP congressional aide has pleaded guilty to molesting two male teens, including the 13-year-old son of a family with whom the staffer lived while working on Capitol Hill.

37-year-old Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, who has worked previously for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), as well the Republican chair of California’s Orange County, agreed to two felony counts of lewd acts upon a child, reports the Associated Press. A jury had deadlocked at an earlier trial this year — in which Nielsen was accused of engaging in sexual acts with a 14-year-old boy he met on the internet — and prosecutors were prepared to bring additional charges in a retrial.

The plea deal is expected to bring a sentence of three years in state prison, according to the Los Angeles Times. Read on…

Titus, yes I do live in Omaha. We are very disturbed by the shooting this week. Being a fairly low-key community our reaction is somewhat muted. I imagine there are not too many folks shopping today at the Westroads today however. It is very sad for all the families of the dead, and traumatid for those who witnessed the senseless killing. I did not know any of the victims.

Chris, I'd be interested in seeing a response on the substance of Lawgiver's 11:31 AM comment. I know snark's easy, and you're good at it, but I'd like to know your view on the actual point.

No snark intended, Simon, but I don't know what his actual point is.Since there are slightly more gay men than lesbians it appears that no more than 5% of our population is responsible for 45% of our AIDS cases.

The only thing I can figure is that he's implying we need to quarantine gays. Or stigmatize them in some other equally ugly and ultimately counterproductive way.

Simon, we have concealed carry in Omaha but virtually all "public" places (like malls & restaurants) are gun free zones. They all have the "no guns" sticker on the door. I don't believe any of the mall security guards carry firearms. They are just typical security that you would see anywhere, usually retired guys or people that couldn't meet the requirements to get into the police department.

Huckabee say, "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

Aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle are fairly relative terms but the statistics should qualify as scientific facts.

"Why don’t you see this behavior as a dangerous public health risk?" is a legitimate question that gays need to address in a clear concise manner. Regardless of what you think I'm implying why can't you give me a well thought out reasonable answer?

Chris, first, keep in mind that my math is absolutely dreadful, so to the extent Lawgiver's comment and this one orbit a math question, check me twice. ;) Anyways, I think you're overshooting into the remedy. Set aside what we would do about it as a matter of policy. I take Lawgiver's basic point to be that if there's a small and discrete section of the population that engages in a certain activity which can lead to HIV transmission, and the CDC's statistics say that this section of the population accounts for a hugely disproportionately high number of the total cases of HIV transmission, isn't it accurate to infer that the given activy poses a public health risk, as Huckabee said? Of course, that doesn't account for what the "activity" is - correlation isn't coincidence, and we can't safely infer that it's gay sex that is more risky without controlling for other variables (promiscuity and protection, to name but two), but I'm interested in how you'd address the point itself setting aside the difficulty of framing a policy response.

"Why don’t you see this behavior as a dangerous public health risk?" is a legitimate question that gays need to address in a clear concise manner. Regardless of what you think I'm implying why can't you give me a well thought out reasonable answer?

Assuming your stats are accurate, which I'm not willing to take as a given, that question can't be answered without dealing with what you're implying.

Chris, first, keep in mind that my math is absolutely dreadful, so to the extent Lawgiver's comment and this one orbit a math question, check me twice. ;) Anyways, I think you're overshooting into the remedy. Set aside what we would do about it as a matter of policy. Itake Lawgiver's basic point to be that if there's a small and discrete section of the population that engages in a certain activity which can lead to HIV transmission, and the CDC's statistics say that this section of the population accounts for a hugely disproportionately high number of the total cases of HIV transmission, isn't it accurate to infer that the given activy poses a public health risk, as Huckabee said

That question is also meaningless without dealing with what should be done about it as a matter of public policy.

Do I know for a fact that Huckabee is a batshit insane anti-gay bigot? (For that matter, do I know that for a fact about Lawgiver?). The answer to both questions is no.

Do I know that for a fact Huckabee was very definitely implying what he would do about it to pander to his batshit insane gay bigot base?

You betcha. And there's more than a whiff of homophobia in the way Lawgiver is asking the question as well....

It is certainly true that anal sex spreads HIV infection more easily than other forms of sex. But blaming gay men for AIDS is like blaming men in general for murder and rape -- it is pretty damned unfair to the majority that haven't done anything to hurt anyone.

It is certainly true that anal sex spreads HIV infection more easily than other forms of sex. But blaming gay men for AIDS is like blaming men in general for murder and rape -- it is pretty damned unfair to the majority that haven't done anything to hurt anyone.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but yes. That's the point I was making....

1. The Bush administration is far more involved with this than they are willing to admit, and someone above the level of Harriet Miers gave the order to destroy crucial evidence, or

2. The Bush administration is inept to the point that a rogue agency (in this case the CIA) is running their own show and willing to disobey a direct order from a White House official not to destroy them, and the administration can't even keep its own house in order.

It's got to be one or the other of these. And either way there needs to be a further investigation and those who voted for Bush to continue to 'lead' the war on terror are exposed as fools.

Um, duh? SEX is a "public health risk". Along with gun ownership, driving cars, Middle Eastern wars and breathing. Should we round up all the perpetrators of those nefarious health risks and put them in camps?

I already said that Hucksterbee should be disqualified from running for President because he stated that he doesn't "believe" in "evolution". This is just a nudge over the top into complete douchbagdom.

As was abundantly expressed two years ago when he came out against the war, Batiste's problem was not that he thought the war or the mission was wrong, but that his requests for, among other things, adequate manpower were being routinely denied (and it sickened him to turn on the TV and hear the President spewing the line about how 'our generals in the field will get the resources they request' when he knew that wasn't happening.) So given why he came out against the war, it's hardly surprising he'd support the 'surge.' It's what he wanted to do in 2004 and 2005.

So given why he came out against the war, it's hardly surprising he'd support the 'surge.' It's what he wanted to do in 2004 and 2005.

I just thought it was worth calling attention to, given that we always hear about these generals when they criticize the handling of the war. I agree that it is unsurprising that Batiste would support the surge.

Huckabee saying what he said in 1992 is indefensible. Don't defend him because it was a long time ago. It wasn't 1982. It was two years before Pedro went on The Real World, and it was several years after the Ray brothers were infected through transfusion (and the same year the first one died), and it was two years after Ryan White died. It had also been common knowledge for years that you couldn't get HIV through casual contact.

Don't defend him on religious grounds. Doing so makes a mockery of religion. Suggesting a quarantine for people with HIV is about as un-Christian and un-American as you can get when it comes to this issue.

And don't defend him by downplaying what he said or acting like he just thinks homosexuality is sinful. This happening on a lot of comment threads on various blogs, and I assume this is how Huckabee will try to explain himself. If your strategy is to just ignore the point he made, you're just conceding that there is no defense of it.

Huckabee is embarrassing. If Republicans are so unhappy with the main four candidates that they would resort to someone who doesn't keep up with the news enough to know what the NIE report said about Iran, and who said something so evil about people with AIDS that even the most conservative Christians should denounce him for it, that really says something about the field.

I think a distinction needs to be made with Huckabee. We need to stop saying "What Huckabee believes" to the more correct "What Huckabee wants people to believe he believes"

In looking up a bit on George Wallace I found this in Wikipedia:

Wallace may have risen to power on the politics of racism, but some insist that he was not simply a racist. A black lawyer recalls, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."

Later, when a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n******, and they stomped the floor."

Huckabee is the same way. His "Christian" leadership credentials were a way to advance in politics, and his politics are adapted to pander to what he feels is the most electable stance. In this political climate this means choosing a particular base. So he goes with what he knows.

Certainly, there's something of his own beliefs mixed up in what he says. But, I would bet that he's played this game so long it's hard to find them in their essence.

That being said, how many millions and millions and millions of dollars could have been saved by more personal responsibility. Saying it's just sex being sex is like saying cholera is unavoidable because people poop.

Fixing the sewers helps global health. Having sexual responsibility saves lives much more than finding a vaccine. An avoidable disease should be addressed in terms of both behavior and medicine.

That's true for anything, and that's not singling out any particular group.

At the same time it's absolutely beyond abhorrent the way many Christians, and many others, attacked, berated, and neglected those who needed, and need, assistance.

The problem with your first idea (higher-ups overriding Miers) is that Miers is so deep in Bush's pocket that it is hard to believe she'd be opposing his will.

The problem with your second idea is that if the Bush administration HAD ordered the CIA to keep the tapes and the CIA ignored them, the Bush folks would be playing that for all it is worth.

I think there's a third possibility that you missed: the decision on what interrogation documents/tapes/etc were worth keeping and which ones weren't was made internally to the CIA, without any policy being explictly set by the Bush Administration. Miers gave her recommendation, but since the CIA doesn't take orders from her they weren't obligated to follow it. From the CIA's perspective, destroying the tapes was a no-brainer -- they posed a threat to CIA agents.

Also keep in mind that the CIA have been bucking against executive oversight for, oh... how long have they been around again? They've been especially hostile to the Bush folks (and vice-versa) because of all the he-said she-said slam-dunk nonsense surrounding the Iraqi WMD intelligence.

During the early days of the epidemic nobody knew how it spread. Promiscuous sex isn't "irresponsible" when you've no reason to believe it is dangerous.

It is true that there was resistance in the gay community, and among gay activists, to things like closing the bath houses and encouraging condom use. But it is also true that the primary cause of that resistance was all the prior years of homophobes crying wolf. They had been trying to get the bathhouses shut down for years citing alleged public health and safety issues with no basis in science or evidence. So when the CDC came along and said "you need to stop doing this" they were indistinguishable from the folks who had demanded the same thing for reasons of sheer bigotry. Naturally, given that the average gay man isn't a retrovirus expert, there was a lot of cynicism about the CDC's motives.

christopher said..."That question is also meaningless without dealing with what should be done about it as a matter of public policy."

Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, do you really mean to suggest we should avert our eyes from and refuse to discuss a potentially important problem because we're afraid of the public policy implications? Worse yet, because we're afraid of the only policy response we can imagine in the abstract, without studying the issue to get a clearer picture of what exactly the problem is and thus how it could be resolved?

What if that standard is applied to climate change? If talking about climate change is "meaningless without dealing with what should be done about it as a matter of public policy," and none of the policy responses we can imagine are acceptable, should we say "nope, not going to talk about that"?

Revenant said..."It is certainly true that anal sex spreads HIV infection more easily than other forms of sex. "

Christopher Althouse Cohen said..."Huckabee saying what he said in 1992 is indefensible. ... Huckabee is embarrassing. If Republicans are so unhappy with the main four candidates that they would resort to someone who doesn't keep up with the news enough to know what the NIE report said about Iran, and who said something so evil about people with AIDS that even the most conservative Christians should denounce him for it, that really says something about the field."

But blaming gay men for AIDS is like blaming men in general for murder and rape -- it is pretty damned unfair to the majority that haven't done anything to hurt anyone.

In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.

I also realize these statements were from 1992 but this was not 1985 when he made those statements.

I would be curious what he believes now regarding people with HIV/AIDS, many of who have undetectable levels of the virus because of drug therapy. These people are living, working, in relationships and should be able to live long productive lives because antiviral treatments.

HIV is no longer a death sentence. It is generally a manageable disease if patients are compliant with their meds.

The sad part is some on the religious right side actually thrive and defend these kind of statements. Similar to Bill Buckley's tattoo statements regarding people with AIDS. Very very sad.

Revenant, like Huckabee's statement the idea of not knowing how it spread is understandable in the early 80s. But that wasn't the case later on and to the present. Having promiscuous sex has always brought with it danger, though not always AIDS. STDs have been among us for millenia.

Like Huckabee's statement such an attitude is wrong and devoid of responsibility while trying to blame others.

But, again, I have no idea what he believed. It's what he said, and like Wallace, I think he said it because it would get him votes and support. Which makes it offensive on a lot of levels.

It's also a reason I would never support him. I'm not surprised he said something like that and no doubt he'd say it again if he thought there was political currency in doing so.

What scares me about Huckabee is illegal immigration, his tax and spend policies, general unreliability.

1) Illegal immigration. Given that Huckabee is a pander bear on most issues, his unflinching and unpopular support for drivers licenses and tuition for illegals, Bush amnesty, and employer sanctions is truly disturbing. He's even called those who oppose him on illegal immigration "racists" and "unchristian". Recently for purely for political reasons, he's changed 180 degrees on the issue. Which scares me even more.

2) He has no record of opposing spending or tax increases. He's stated he wouldn't veto the Schip bill. Who knows what he would do as POTUS? I can see him cutting a deal with Ted Kennedy for National health insurance.

3)Unreliability. His only two core beliefs seem to be his Christian faith and political expediency. His inclination is always to be "responsible" and "get results" - code words for cutting deals with liberal democrats and getting the approval of the WaPo editorial page.

First, the article I linked to says that Miers told the CIA not to destroy the tapes. Not 'recommended' or 'suggested,' but 'told.' That's pretty clear.

Second, if the CIA is running its own program and does not consider that the White House has the authority to tell it what to do, then it may be time to completely disband the agency. You cite the Iraq war as an example of a horrible mistake we can make given faulty information, and it is clear just from the reactions we've seen this week after the Iran nuke report (the CIA said it, and all of a sudden the politicans are tripping over themselves trying to adjust everything they are saying) that what we have is the tail wagging the dog.

So, in other words, you are saying option 2 from my post.

And given the long record of ineptitude we've seen from the Bush administration, a record unrivaled since the days of Jimmy Carter, I'm inclined to agree with that.

As an aside, after typing your name, I got this strange feeling of WTF? Law Giver?

Anyways, let me stipulate for the sake of argument (without agreeing) that there is a higher incidence of disease, or perhaps better measured as a higher burden for health care costs, by homosexuals (contact DTL! I have slurred!).

Do you think a reasonable suggestion is quarantine? Knowing what we know now? Knowing what we knew back in 1992?

If you answer no, then what the hell are you arguing? You are doing nothing more than trying to defend what you already think is indefensible.

If you answer yes, then in the interest of public safety, I support the quarantine, and sexual neutering, of people as dumb as you.

I apologize in advance if this reply comes across as riled up. One of those days.

Lawgiver is a WOW reference. If you're not one of the 9 million Warcraft geeks and/or haven't seen the commercial it is probably meaningless to you. It's just a name I use for my avatar.

I'm really not arguing anything. I am just asking questions. I would not vote for Huckabee and do not support his views. Simon seemed to answer my question better than anyone else. For some reason it appears to be a taboo subject, one of those things that if you talk about it you must be a homophobe questions.

In 92, AIDS was still a death sentence. People reasonably feared that HIV was in the blood supply - News came out in 1993 that the first test the Red Cross used, in 1985, let contaminated blood through. http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1993/AD931183.html

I'll confess straight away that I have not read all of the comments here so I don't know which of the following may be dupes.

And I am not sure why i think these will guaranteed a thoughtful hearing here, but maybe the reasonable and thoughtful among is will resonate.

But I want a place to say what is on my mind and the comments are open here.

1. Is there a way back (if there ever was such a place) to the place where we could go Christmas (or whatever) shopping and not expect some nut case to put a bullet in the back of our heads.

2. What happened to the "security surveillance" cameras at Westroads?

2.a. Why didn't the loss of privacy in the name of safety and security keep those people safe and secure?

2.b. Are we destined to be accompanied by people with machine guns (as I have seen in travels to Europe) to be safe?

2.c. Will it be worth it? (What are the implications of the implicit question "Why didn't "they" pick up the nut case on the video and match him to the "obvious" trouble profile. Might I match some such profile? Lord knows I have some unpleasant attributes.)

3. What (if any) are the temporal implications of the fracturing of the Episcopal church in The San Joaquin Valley today. (Note that this is just the biggest fracture, by no means the first. We have had several smaller ruptures here in Omaha and elsewhere her in Nebraska.)

EnigmatiCore said..."Bush has been remarkably ineffectual and incompetent in many regards."

Most of all in the communications sphere. This administration's PR has been a fiasco, even accounting for the need to deal with a hostile press. They've never really dealt with the concept that they need to effectively communicate what they're doing, what they're not doing, and why.

First, the article I linked to says that Miers told the CIA not to destroy the tapes. Not 'recommended' or 'suggested,' but 'told.' That's pretty clear.

Well I wouldn't read too much into specific word choice, considering that (a) the word is paraphrased, not quoted, (b) the source is an anonymous White House insider (who probably has a vested interest in making it sound like the CIA disobeyed orders), and (c) I've probably sneezed more brain cells than the average reporter uses to write one of these articles.

Maybe Miers did "tell" the CIA not to do this. But she was the deputy White House counsel. The CIA doesn't answer to her. She was not a superior official in the Executive Branch; she was just someone whose job is to give legal advice to the White House. So even if she DID "tell" the CIA "don't do that", the CIA would have been well within their rights to tell her to bugger off and mind her own business. The only way an order from Miers would carry weight is if she was just passing along and order from a higher-ranking official who DID have authority to boss the CIA around, e.g. Bush himself. If that was the case the White House insiders would be leaking THAT bit of information for their spin control.

The CIA, like any executive branch organization, has a lot of leeway to conduct business the way it wants to unless the law prevents it or a superior person or organization tells them to do it differently. If, like I hypothesized, Miers offered her opinion but the Bush Administration didn't push it, the CIA could have done whatever it wanted (i.e., cover its own ass at the expense of making Bush look like an idiot, AGAIN) without violating the law or the chain of authority within the executive branch.

if the CIA is running its own program and does not consider that the White House has the authority to tell it what to do, then it may be time to completely disband the agency.

Disbanding the CIA is a good idea, period. The decade after decade of utter incompetence is wearing thin.

I think it was a good idea to destroy those videotapes. Their release would have given aid and comfort to our mortal enemies. The irony is that it is the first time in what seems like ages that the CIA has actually done something right.

I agree we should abolish the CIA, or if not, to put it under the control of the Department of Defense. The CIA has an obsolete mission, and it seems now to do more harm than good.

I'm taking the coffee house option to write on a completely personal topic.

This week starts the holiday season for us each year, as we meet with friends to celebrate a birthday and splurge on a great meal. Tonight we went to a new, truly fine restaurant, MiLa. New Orleans, even in our strange recovery situation, has world-class cuisine.

So, MiLa (named for the married chefs, who come from Mississippi and Louisiana) was our choice for the evening. I'll call it Southern-Creole fusion, but that's probably too narrow. Some standouts that we enjoyed: sweetbreads with truffled grits; chopped frisee atop thin slices of butternut squash with little balls of panko-crusted goat cheese in a balsamic reduction; grilled grouper with cepes and mustard greens; pig cheeks and langostines, with collard greens flavored with vinegar. I had a NY Strip with sweet potato truffle gratin. There was more but the Veuve Cliquot has clouded my memory.

1. Is there a way back (if there ever was such a place) to the place where we could go Christmas (or whatever) shopping and not expect some nut case to put a bullet in the back of our heads.

Don't think that's really possible in a free society. The number of guns in America is toothpaste out of the tube. You will never be able to insure that nutcases and criminals will be unable to obtain guns.

2. What happened to the "security surveillance" cameras at Westroads?

The cameras were there but merely recorded the slaughter as it occurred.

2.a. Why didn't the loss of privacy in the name of safety and security keep those people safe and secure?

The cameras are feel-good measures that do more to catch shoplifters than anything else.

2.b. Are we destined to be accompanied by people with machine guns (as I have seen in travels to Europe) to be safe?

Not gonna happen.

2.c. Will it be worth it? (What are the implications of the implicit question "Why didn't "they" pick up the nut case on the video and match him to the "obvious" trouble profile. Might I match some such profile? Lord knows I have some unpleasant attributes.)

A security guard did mention that the shooter was acting "suspiciously" but did nothing to stop him from entering the store.

3. What (if any) are the temporal implications of the fracturing of the Episcopal church in The San Joaquin Valley today. (Note that this is just the biggest fracture, by no means the first. We have had several smaller ruptures here in Omaha and elsewhere her in Nebraska.)

It is disturbing how gay activists infiltrate the leadership of major religious denominations and proceed to implement gay-friendly policies within the churches. This seems to happen more with denominations that have "top-down" governance. My own denomination has more of a bottom-up style of leadership where the laity of an individual church has more influence over doctrine. It's not as if there are no gay-friendly denominations, so it is hard for me to understand why activists feel the need to cause so much strife within more conservative churches. Please understand, I have no hatred for gay individuals, I have several gay friends with whom I have spoken openly about my beliefs. I just don't see the need for churches to celebrate a lifestyle which clearly goes against their established religious traditions.

Re: Huckabee, I think he is not ready for prime time. It seems he has not learned to state his policy positions in a manner that is palatable to the mainstream. As far as "quarantining" AIDS patients is concerned, he might have had a legitimate public health concern at the time. An unmedicated HIV carrier can be a breeding ground for exotic bacteria, such as the MRSA which has been so much in the news lately. (I don't agree that AIDS patients should be quarantined, rather they should be effectively treated, as is possible now to control their disease.)

Jennifer, it was wonderful. I left out one of the best parts: chive cornbread with a lima bean spread. The spread had a lot of citrus and evoked hummus. What else? Oh the desserts. My favorite was a sweet sushi rice pudding with golden raisins -- an upscale take on Southern home cooking. But there was a muscadine jello with kiwi and mango that I liked, too.

I wish I had the money to go there once a month.

The chefs, Slade Rushing and Allison Vines-Rushing, returned here a year or so ago from New York. They were at Jack's Luxury Oyster Bar in Manhattan, and they also have a partnership in Dirty Bird to Go, a little fried chicken spot at 204 West 14th Street, but I don't if they're still making weekend trips back to NY now that they've opened MiLa.

That sounds like a great meal. I know that New Orleans has some great reaturants. A friend of ours has a store in the Vieux Carre called the Voluptious Vixen. You should check it out. She buys from a lot of the same vendors and has some great stuff.

Trooper -- being a voluptuous vixen myself, I'll make it a point to stop by. Once I get my final grades turned in tomorrow night, I'm free to wander the streets of the Quarter and enjoy my Christmas holiday. If the expected cold front materializes Thursday, I plan to head down there for to walk, shop, and stop in at cozy bars for the occasional Guiness.

If you visit your friend, try out MiLa, or Cochon, my other favorite place to open post-Katrina. It is, as its name implies, all about the pig and one of the only actual Cajun restaurants in the city. They raise their own pigs and have their own Boucherie. There's even moonshine on the bar menu.

I will definitely check them out when we visit in the Spring. When you go to the Vixen, tell Jaclyn the owner that your cyber friends from Lee Lee's Valise sent you. I know a Tadashi gown for New Years Eve will be right up your alley.

I plan to head down there for to walk, shop, and stop in at cozy bars for the occasional Guiness.

Beth, that sounds heavenly. Wish I could join you. I have to admit that your truffled grits comment made me laugh! For me, it has always been risotto, but I'm a Northern girl, what do I know about grits?

Joan, truffled risotto would rock, wouldn't it? I'd enjoy showing you the Quarter, too; I think you'd love many things about it, and appreciate the beauty of the Cathedral.

By the way, grits are just southern semolina, aren't they? I used to know the exact highway exit where the last bowl of grits were served before crossing the Mason-Dixon line. It's somewhere in just south of D.C., on the route up the East coast to New York.

Jennifer, believe me, as available as great food is here in NOLA, my budget only allows a few extravagances like this a year.

The chefs at MiLa both come from little Waffle House towns -- somewhere in north La. and Tylertown, MS. They do a neat job of taking that down home local cuisine and fresh local meat and produce, and turning it into modern American gourmet. The best French cooking does the same thing, starting with the simple products from out in the country and elevating the combinations and techniques.

My dad was dirt poor growing up in Arkansas. A real treat for them was a bowl of rice with cream and sugar. I thought of that last night having my sushi rice pudding dessert. It was an homage to that country-style cereal.